Raise Standards, Don’t Lower Barriers

“What Matters Most: Teaching for America’s Future,” the aptly titled report by the National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future, reports that a significant percentage of the nation’s newly hired teachers are undertrained and ill-prepared to meet their responsibilities.

California mirrors this national problem, the study found. The commission drew upon data compiled before the passage of state legislation reducing class sizes, which has generated a hasty flurry of new hires of the type decried by the report. The problem of undertrained teachers in California will be even more dismal when these new classroom instructors are factored in.

As the report points out, there are multiple causes for unprepared teachers, including too many weak teacher preparation programs. But in California, and perhaps elsewhere, the larger blame rests with those who share the misguided belief that “anyone can teach.” And this blame exists across the political spectrum.

On the left, there are those who have launched a federal lawsuit to eliminate the use of the California Basic Education Skills Test (CBEST) as a screening tool for prospective teachers. This test, basically a “Three R’s” assessment with roughly an eighth grade level of difficulty, is attacked by plaintiffs for allegedly discriminating against some minority groups. What CBEST actually does (and legitimately so) is to identify and thus discriminate against anyone who cannot show mastery of its very basic academic material. In a similar fashion, teacher unions contribute to the lowering of expectations regarding teaching standards by resisting merit pay and more stringent standards for teacher evaluation and retention.

On the political right, we have advocates of vouchers for private schooling who support no standards for teachers other than those demanded by the marketplace. For their part, Gov. Pete Wilson and his supporters, because of the class-size legislation and the even greater pressure to increase the number of teachers, continue with their attempts to reduce teacher preparation and lower the standards for entering the profession. But as the commission’s report suggests, such a politically expedient response offers a cure worse than the illness.

In California’s case, an elementary class of 20 taught by an ill-prepared “instant” teacher will prove far worse for the students involved than if they were in a class of 40 taught by a highly qualified and dedicated teacher.

There is a sad irony here. This movement toward easy access into teaching occurs as we are discovering ever more about the subtle and complex processes of how children learn and how myriad decisions that teachers make profoundly impact that learning.

In California, a four-year college degree and one year or less of preservice training qualifies one for a teaching credential. To lower those standards even further for political or economic reasons or even to reduce class size is to do a terrible disservice to our children.

The commission’s report is no surprise to those of us who have witnessed the politically motivated attempts to drive down standards for becoming a teacher. Obviously, the proper way to increase the pool of talented people interested in teaching and capable of fulfilling stringent entrance requirements is to improve teaching salaries and working conditions. But woe to the politician who suggests such an approach. It is much easier and cheaper simply to lower the entrance standards.

Political leaders who seem to regard teaching as a simple and readily mastered task diminish the importance of a rigorous professional preparation program. They make it that much easier for politicians and the public to duck the responsibility for finding ways to support and finance high professional standards for those who would teach our children.