Valley Commentary : Let’s Teach Future Teachers the Right Way : The Legislature has prescribed a litany of subjects as part of the one-year program for prospective educators. But there is a limit to what can be taught in 30 units. There is some hope for change.

Who can give CPR to a heart attack victim, settle violent disputes, help parents rear brighter kids, understand how language works and bring young minds along the road to maturity?

The answer: a California public school teacher! During their one-year education program, prospective teachers must get instruction in each of these subjects and a litany of others prescribed by the state’s Legislature and agencies.

Many of these requirements are born of good intentions and stem from genuine concerns about school quality. The Legislature mandates a new area of instruction for the teacher-education curriculum when it perceives a social problem and decides that teachers ought to be society’s first line of action against it.

For example, some students come to school armed with guns. This resulted in a bill to compel prospective teachers to receive instruction in “disarming students.” Eventually that was changed to “resolving conflicts.” This change relieved us of the sight of hand-to-hand combat lessons in schools of education, but the underlying goal remained the same, and a new straw was added to the camel’s back.

*

The current design for teacher education in California was established in the Ryan Act adopted more than 20 years ago. It resulted in making teacher preparation a one-year, post-baccalaureate endeavor.

In California, teachers-to-be cannot study education as undergraduates. They major in an academic subject if they intend to teach secondary school and take a slightly different course of study if they want to go into elementary education.

The post-baccalaureate teaching credential program seeks to “make a teacher” in only two semesters or about 30 units of study, including student teaching.

The process is encumbered by the continual injection of newly legislated topics of study. Some of these topics merit study by new teachers. But how meaningful can that study be when it is crammed into such a limited amount of time?

Legislative micro-managing of teacher education is nothing new, but confronted with today’s social and economic problems, the Legislature has increasingly intruded into the curriculum. Recently adopted and proposed topics include working with parents in partnerships, self-esteem and violence. A bill mandating instruction in gender equity issues is pending. One on anabolic steroids, mercifully, failed.

*

Obviously, despite our limitless hopes and expectations for new teachers, there is a limit to what can be taught in 30 units. The underlying problem exists within the program designed by the Ryan Act itself. We simply cannot expect this rigid and restrictive model to produce the teachers we need today.

Ironically, at the same time that policy makers have engaged in creative over-regulation of university teacher education, some are now interested in “alternative teacher certification” programs.

“Alternative certification” is often a euphemism for programs that substitute an apprenticeship for legislatively imposed requirements, even good ones, and the university credential programs.

A handful of such programs exist now. One is in Los Angeles, where a law allows the district to certify teachers hired in shortage areas. Some current bills would throw away the few rules that do apply to these programs. For instance, one would allow teacher education to be carried out by entrepreneurial entities, no matter how unqualified their personnel may be.

In our view, the teacher-education curriculum should be the province of those who have made a career of understanding it from a broad, societal point of view. It is the teacher education community, including universities and school districts, that must attract able students and prepare them to teach effectively.

The Legislature should demand accountability for high-quality programs but should neither engage in patchwork curriculum-writing nor give a free hand to any group that wants to prepare teachers.

Fortunately, there is the hope of change. A new law requires the state Commission on Teacher Credentialing to examine the whole question. We hope it recognizes that preparing teachers can and should take many forms.

Some people can become good teachers through short, intensive course work and on-the-job practice. Others may learn better through an extended program over time, starting as assistant teachers. Still others will benefit from immersion in professional development schools modeled on teaching hospitals.

Experienced ex-teacher aides who understand the community need specialized, career-ladder credential programs. Experts in math and science from aerospace businesses need to learn about child and adolescent development and pedagogy. And why shouldn’t some undergraduates study their disciplines and simultaneously study how to teach them? Teacher education institutions and programs must become more different, not more alike.

*

California State University would make an excellent laboratory, in partnership with the schools, for the reinvention of teacher education.

Ten of its campuses could continue to prepare teachers under the current California model. At the other 10, the Legislature could waive all credential and program requirements for five years. They would be expected to redefine expectations and redesign teacher education programs to meet them.

Let’s try it, and then compare and learn from the outcome.