Wisconsin legislation: Teacher wanted-no degree needed

[Kal'Stang]

Homeschooling your own children is very different than teaching a class of 30 something students with differing needs from very gifted to severely disabled. Non-core subjects encompassed more than shop or PE. It also encompasses foreign language, the arts, and technology.

:shrug: It's still without any sort of degree. And there are parents that teach their very gifted and severally disabled children. In anycase, point still stands that at one point in time teachers did not need a degree to teach reading, math, basic science, and history.

As for the rest, you still don't need a degree with those. There's been plenty of artists that never went to some college or university to do what they do/did. You don't need a degree to speak foreign languages either.

As for teachers needing to know how to handle 20-30 kids, there are lots of people that do that without degree's also. Lots of daycare centers for example do not have staff members with degree's in teaching. Sides, its actually not all that hard to wrangle 30 kids if you keep them interested. That of course is the trick, lots of people don't know how. But it can still be taught without the need to spend thousands for a piece of paper.

 

[Absentglare]

Americans want public school to be like daycare, but also train children to become astronauts, and they also want it to be cheap.

The people who don't understand the complexity of reality think we can do all three, while others want only the first and last, and more still just want the second.

It's absolutely ridiculous. We get what we pay for, and that's especially true when we're talking about investments in our own future.

 

[joG]

A new proposal hatched in the Wisconsin legislature would provide significantly more flexibility in teacher hiring, allowing districts to on-board potentially even candidates without a college degrees Teaching in Wisconsin Might Not Even Require a College Degree Soon - Teaching Now - Education Week Teacher

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Wisconsin may be the first state in the country to certify teachers who don’t have bachelor’s degrees under a provision put in the state budget, a move that has drawn widespread criticism and that Gov. Scott Walker refused to say Thursday whether he supports.
Under the change, anyone with relevant experience could be licensed to teach non-core academic subjects in grades six through 12. They would not need a bachelor’s degree and they could even be a high school dropout.
Anyone with a bachelor’s degree could be licensed to teach in core subjects of English, math, social studies or science.
The decision on whether to hire someone with the alternative certification would be up to the school district, including private schools that accept voucher students and independent charter schools. Wisconsin may be first to license teachers without degree - Washington Times

Slippery slope or not? Some states no longer require teachers to receive teacher certification anymore? In places like Utah that is because of teacher shortages. Is this the way to go?

I have, in fact, known people that certainly had the capability of teaching at a very high level, but had never been to college at all. There have been only a very few such that I met, but it is quite possible. Also, the specialties they would be able to teach might not be readily filled by persons with the correct education. In this case I am thinking of two examples. One of them gave seminars in comparative philosophy at various universities on a guest basis and the other had retired from banking after an extremely successful career using derivatives.

 

[cpwill]

People who are best suited for the job have a keen knowledge of childhood development, and how the brain develops.

Sometimes. It matters heavily what they are trying to teach. Non-Core Academic Subjects less so.

They also have a keen knowledge in how to diversify curricula for a wide range of learners. They need to know the subject matter they are teaching including reading and phonological development if teaching young children. They need to be trained how to work with children who struggle due to a host of problems including learning disabilities. I can go on and on but I think you get my drift. Some person who has a high school diploma is very limited in their scope of how complex teaching a room full of children is including how to assess and plan for a host of interventions. That is if one is a good teacher.

Again, ya'll are conflating general classroom experience and what we think of as "schooling" with what they are actually aiming at.

 

[cpwill]

Education majors have the lowest SAT scores, and yet they receive the highest GPA's. As a field, it attracts our lower performers who are seeking easy classes followed by job security and retirement benefits.

The percentage of candidates reporting a 3.5 GPA or higher rose from 27% to 40%

Teacher qualifications improve in the past decade - USATODAY.com

The college grades of prospective teachers has also improved. About 40 percent of the prospective teachers taking the licensing tests from 2002 to 2005 had a grade point average of 3.5 or higher on the traditional 4-point scale during college, up from 26 percent in the 1990s, the report said.

“By this measure, we are witnessing a dramatic improvement in the quality of the teacher pool,” the report said.

Just to point out, you just answered the point that grades in education were inflated because the classes were easy, by pointing out that people were making good grades.

Now this:

Prospective teachers who took state teacher licensing exams from 2002 to 2005 scored higher on SATs in high school and earned higher grades in college than their counterparts who took the exams in the mid-1990s, the report said.

The average SAT verbal scores of prospective teachers passing the Praxis tests to teach English, science, social studies, math and art from 2002 to 2005 were higher than those of prospective teachers in the mid-1990s — and were also higher than the average SAT scores for all college graduates, the report said.

Is a good point to make - but it still doesn't make them the equivalent of Med or Law students.

The most important aspect of this all is something that you are still choosing to ignore, for it is the most glaring flaw in your pathetic theory... The Art of Teaching… Teaching is more than simple knowledge in a field. It is balancing kids, emotions and such, along with classroom management skills and curriculum and much more. I know some "experts" in their fields that have admitted that they could never be a successful teacher. They simply don't have the skills to deal with the stress and the skills it takes to run a class and most importantly, the students in it.

:lol: Sure. But appealing to some vague special gnosis doesn't make teachers just as much a master of their field as doctors.

 

[Socrates1]

Maybe you should ask them instead of flippantly putting them in quotation marks like that.

No need to ask , I KNOW .

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

:shrug: It's still without any sort of degree. And there are parents that teach their very gifted and severally disabled children. In anycase, point still stands that at one point in time teachers did not need a degree to teach reading, math, basic science, and history.

As for the rest, you still don't need a degree with those. There's been plenty of artists that never went to some college or university to do what they do/did. You don't need a degree to speak foreign languages either.

As for teachers needing to know how to handle 20-30 kids, there are lots of people that do that without degree's also. Lots of daycare centers for example do not have staff members with degree's in teaching. Sides, its actually not all that hard to wrangle 30 kids if you keep them interested. That of course is the trick, lots of people don't know how. But it can still be taught without the need to spend thousands for a piece of paper.

Teachers are NOT glorified daycare workers. When you have a room of 30 kids and say 7 are struggling readers and 5 have some form of dyspraxia and several have a variety of other issues. You may also have a few students with ADD, one with the additional label of ODD and possible CD. You also have two students with emotional issues, one with PTSD. You also have a variety of students with some form of dyscalculia and dyslexia. They struggle with not just reading but writing and mathematical skills. Now, you are responsible for assessing everyone of those students in all core subject matter, and be responsible for every student to make x amount of progress which can only be x amount away from the common core standards or 1. You get a needs improvement and can possibly lose your job or don't move up the pay scale depending on your school district rules. Please explain how you can compare that to homeschooling or daycare work?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I have, in fact, known people that certainly had the capability of teaching at a very high level, but had never been to college at all. There have been only a very few such that I met, but it is quite possible. Also, the specialties they would be able to teach might not be readily filled by persons with the correct education. In this case I am thinking of two examples. One of them gave seminars in comparative philosophy at various universities on a guest basis and the other had retired from banking after an extremely successful career using derivatives.

The point is those are rare which you yourself admitted. You are more likely to end up with the bottom of the barrel.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Sometimes. It matters heavily what they are trying to teach. Non-Core Academic Subjects less so.



Again, ya'll are conflating general classroom experience and what we think of as "schooling" with what they are actually aiming at.

I don't understand what you mean? It takes more than just classroom experience to be good at helping all students especially those who are struggling learners.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Just to point out, you just answered the point that grades in education were inflated because the classes were easy, by pointing out that people were making good grades.

Now this:



Is a good point to make - but it still doesn't make them the equivalent of Med or Law students.




:lol: Sure. But appealing to some vague special gnosis doesn't make teachers just as much a master of their field as doctors.

Why can't teachers be masters of their field like any other profession? It is this kind of attitude that allows substandard teachers.

 

[cpwill]

Why can't teachers be masters of their field like any other profession? It is this kind of attitude that allows substandard teachers.

They absolutely can be. His argument was that, as a profession, they were the equivalent of medical doctors when it came to mastery of their craft.

This when we have problems with significant numbers of teachers having minimum or even substandard competency in their subjects.

 

[joG]

The point is those are rare which you yourself admitted. You are more likely to end up with the bottom of the barrel.

You might. Granted. But the shrewd principal might just get a perfect deal.

 

[cpwill]

I don't understand what you mean? It takes more than just classroom experience to be good at helping all students especially those who are struggling learners.

The move to allow non-credentialed teachers is explicitly aimed at those areas (non-core academics) where the requirements you raise impact the least. You don't need to a formal background in Constructivism in order to teach a kid how to take an engine apart and then put it back together.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

They absolutely can be. His argument was that, as a profession, they were the equivalent of medical doctors when it came to mastery of their craft.

This when we have problems with significant numbers of teachers having minimum or even substandard competency in their subjects.

I see. The best way to attract the best is to not only expect them to be well educated and trained in their craft, but to treat them and compensate them like professionals not like baby sitters.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

The move to allow non-credentialed teachers is explicitly aimed at those areas (non-core academics) where the requirements you raise impact the least. You don't need to a formal background in Constructivism in order to teach a kid how to take an engine apart and then put it back together.

I believe we discussed that non academic teachers are not simply shop teachers, but also encompasses the arts, technology and foreign language.

 

[cpwill]

I see. The best way to attract the best is to not only expect them to be well educated and trained in their craft, but to treat them and compensate them like professionals not like baby sitters.

I would say so. We need to dramatically shift teacher compensation from out-year stability benefits to larger pay checks, with the ability to earn more through greater achievement, in order to attract our nations' high-performers. I simply don't think that "well educated and trained in their craft" necessarily requires a credential for every topic - Like I said earlier, my wife's uncle is a ridiculously successful construction contractor. He could build the school. His company has, in fact, built parts of several schools. He's qualified to teach the kids in them how to hammer nails.

 

[cpwill]

I believe we discussed that non academic teachers are not simply shop teachers, but also encompasses the arts, technology and foreign language.

Sure. And?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

Sure. And?

Okay. Explain how a person teaching foreign language to a full class of students and some struggle with learning the language because they struggle with some type (s) of learning disabilities will help them without proper training? Same goes for learning technology or one of the arts?

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

You might. Granted. But the shrewd principal might just get a perfect deal.

So, you are willing to change the system to allow hiring of people who don't have any type of degree including high school in the hopes of attracting that one out of 1000? In the meantime, you open the door to allow uneducated people to teach our kids because some districts can't find qualified candidates. Raising salary would be better than lowering standards.

 

[cpwill]

Okay. Explain how a person teaching foreign language to a full class of students and some struggle with learning the language because they struggle with some type (s) of learning disabilities will help them without proper training?

:shrug: hopefully successfully. As Fiddy has outlined, it's not like the current training regime for standard teachers equips them to handle learning disabilities that well.

Same goes for learning technology or one of the arts?

:shrug: the same. If you wanted to require a seminar on "handling kids with learning disabilities" for all incoming teachers, I think that'd be a fine solve, but it's more likely those teachers will simply ask their more experienced peers - just as inexperienced teachers today do.

 

[joG]

So, you are willing to change the system to allow hiring of people who don't have any type of degree including high school in the hopes of attracting that one out of 1000? In the meantime, you open the door to allow uneducated people to teach our kids because some districts can't find qualified candidates. Raising salary would be better than lowering standards.

I would hope that a good principal could vet the staff she employs. But I don't think that schools should be in public hands in any event unless there is an overriding reason in a particular case.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

:shrug: hopefully successfully. As Fiddy has outlined, it's not like the current training regime for standard teachers equips them to handle learning disabilities that well.



:shrug: the same. If you wanted to require a seminar on "handling kids with learning disabilities" for all incoming teachers, I think that'd be a fine solve, but it's more likely those teachers will simply ask their more experienced peers - just as inexperienced teachers today do.

Wow, you think it takes a seminar to be properly trained to help struggling learners? I agree undergrad classes offer some training but the real ON GOING training happens in grad school. Yes, ongoing because there is plenty to learn throughout your career. Many states expect this in order to keep your certification.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I would hope that a good principal could vet the staff she employs. But I don't think that schools should be in public hands in any event unless there is an overriding reason in a particular case.

The point is most won't run into those odds and will be left with loads of crappie applicants.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

I would hope that a good principal could vet the staff she employs. But I don't think that schools should be in public hands in any event unless there is an overriding reason in a particular case.

One other point...Public money belongs in public hands!

 

[cpwill]

Wow, you think it takes a seminar to be properly trained to help struggling learners?

As opposed to a class you doze through in undergrad? I think you could see people who are motivated and mature learners take more away from a seminar.