Get Schooled

By Jess Buice

February 23, 2005 08:37 AM | Link to this

The proposal to require future Nationally Certified teachers to teach in underperforming schools is, as we say in the south, putting the cart before the horse. Sadly, as is often said about the South, it is also backward thinking (see below). It sounds good, and in a perfect world the idea has merit, however, this is not a perfect world, and Georgia’s educational system is far from perfect! I would expect the prospect of being relocated to underperforming school would also reduce the number of candidates for National Certification. This would reduce the bonuses given by the state and reduce the education budget, which could be the root of the proposal! HUM? (grin)

As a member of the National Development Team for developing the requirements for national music certification, I have no doubt those teachers who succeed in gaining National Certification are exemplary teachers and would bring tremendous skills to an underperforming school, unfortunately in many schools, they would be looked down upon by their peers. In three of the last schools where I taught, and that would be in three separate metro districts, there was NO encouragement from the local school administration to seek National Certification! NONE! Yes, the district was favorable, and held clinics, but this did not filter down to the local school level. Sending newly Nationally Certified teachers into an underperforming school, as an effort to improve the student’s performance would also send the message that these teachers were BETTER than the current faculty. The pressure and stress would be intense!!! These are the facts of the political and social ills of the faculty school environment.

I would recommend a more progressive approach. One that doesn’t penalize those who gain National Certification, but one that rewards teachers in underperforming schools for improving their skills and thus improving their schools. The state should adopt incentives for teachers in underperforming schools to seek National Certification, perhaps offsetting the cost of the process, and a commitment to remain at their school for a period of years to be determined!!! I have no doubt this would increase the number of applicants for National Certification, and in the end, improve the instruction and performance in their schools!

In closing, as a member of the National Certification development process, I know first hand the effect the effort has on teachers, and would encourage ALL teachers to become candidates for National Certification! Having seen hundreds of videos and read countless numbers of entries from candidates, there is no question that the process has a profound positive effect on the skills and moral of those who achieve National Certification, which I might add is not easy, as the average percentage to gain this honor is around 50% of the total applicants! These positive effects for the teachers and the students at the underperforming locations are just what these schools need! Having said this, I must add, this is only one part of the many, many changes needed to improve Georgia’s educational system, but I believe my proposal is a step in a more positive direction,

Sincerely,

Jess Buice - Jonesboro, GA

By C.M.

February 23, 2005 10:45 AM | Link to this

This could be a great idea! I however fear that it will put the brakes on National Board Certification applications.

By cp

February 23, 2005 11:01 AM | Link to this

Jess, Makes a lot of sense. I’m wondering why they didn’t ask you or your team before drafting this particular legislation….

By Ernest

February 23, 2005 02:44 PM | Link to this

I also think Jess’s recommendations have merit. I would offer a ‘tweak’ that would not discourage teachers from seeking this certification while still rewarding those willing to go into NI schools. Have a ‘sliding scale’ increase based on the school. For instance, a smaller increase could be given for teaching at school doing well and greater increases to those on the NI list. This gives the teacher more control over their desired increase while hopefully financially incenting them to teach at underperfoming schools.

By cp

February 23, 2005 04:15 PM | Link to this

How about 10% for getting certified and another 10% for going to an NI school. How much could it cost?!? We’re in trouble here. Let’s write some checks to the people that can fix it.

By lynn

February 24, 2005 08:18 AM | Link to this

One of my thoughts on this is that it might help level the playing field. There are some schools where parents, through the PTA or other parent organization, either subsidize the cost of obtaining additional certifications (ie gifted or perhaps national board) or reward teachers for completing such a program.

At many schools, there are no resources for such incentives. Additionally, while national board certification is certainly worthwhile, certifications like ESOL and reading specialist may be more relevant to the needs of the student population at needs improvement schools.

By lynn

February 24, 2005 08:25 AM | Link to this

One other thought about Ms. Buice’s idea. In the metro area and other large school systems, strong teachers have an easy time getting out of needs improvement schools. Thus, I don’t think many would committ to a long stay at a needs improvement school, unless they are really dedicated and committed to serving that kind of school.

I think that in small districts in Georgia, where people live in the community in which they teach, her incentive idea would work great. But I think in most large systems, most new teachers aspire to work the number of years needed at “weaker” schools until they can transfer out to stronger schools.

By Bruce R

February 24, 2005 10:42 AM | Link to this

This part of the SB 34 bill is a bad idea and tries to solve complicated problems with a “one size fits all” mentality. First of all, you need to see WHY is the school on the needs improvement list in the first place?? It may have really nothing to do with poor teaching and instruction and therefore would not be corrected by bringing in a nationally certified teacher.

Second, according to NCLB (No Child Left Behind) there won’t be any schools needing inprovement after 2016 so this would effectively KILL the national teacher certification process and incentive!!

Third, the law may take the decision making away from the local schools and create a potentially “hostile” working environment for those teachers coming into a NI school and attempting to effect change. Wasn’t that the point of having “school improvement teams?” Those schools who failed for 3 years or more would have these outside teams come into the schools to make changes. I thought they were suppose to correct the school’s failures? Now this bill would put the schools success on the nationally certified teachers shoulders? This to me is creating a potentially explosive mix.

Lastly, Why don’t we give the system a chance to fix itself? Let the school improvement teams do their job and the local school boards and administrators try to remedy things based on the unique and specific problems they see? Procedures for school who continuously fail ar already in place. Why add additional sweeping elements before we’ve given the original plan a chance to work!! NCLB has only been here for 4 years!

By Educator

February 24, 2005 10:54 AM | Link to this

I feel like this is more political rhetoric that makes an “educational plan” full of fluff and no substance. Hey Sonny, I voted for you pal, but you need to look at ways that can really help the situation. We need to address questions like “Why are we at such a deficit when it comes to academic teachers?” and “How can we attract top notch people to the profession?” You can’t get “cream of the crop” people when you pay “chicken _” (you fill in the blank) salary. Sorry, but I have a real problem with teachers that teach non-academic subjects making the same as teachers that teach subjects that are being tested with standardized tests. I don’t see where non-academic teachers are being held accountable by the communities, states, or nation like these academic teachers. Something needs to be done about it. I think teachers of academic subjects (those subjects that are tested by standardized testing) should be payed extra for teaching critical areas. Do something that will matter and quit adding clauses to legislation that do nothing but create other problems.

By Christopher Smith

February 24, 2005 04:11 PM | Link to this

I think the hidden agenda here is to put a stop to what many legislators see as an overly-generous financial incentive for gaining National Certification. ie. the former governor lost his head in a moment of idealistic weakness etc…Legislators are big on teachers being held accountable and their being measured by the criteria of marketplace meritocracy until they have to put a little bit of money where their considerable mouths are. How inconvenient for them that so many teachers have welcomed the challenge of being held to a rigorous standard. Even more inconvenient is that this marketplace ethic many legislators live and die by demands that teachers be financially rewarded for demonstrated success! Let’s see this for what it really is: A teacher will effectively be punished for taking on the challenge and stimulation of this rigorous assessment. If you succeed, you will have to leave the colleagues and students you have loved being among (possibly for many years), and relocate to a school where you will be viewed with suspicion and hostility. Boy, am I motivated now! They must really think I’m dying for that 10%! What is going to happen is this: absolutely no one is going to go to the trouble of taking the assessment, which of course would suit many tightfisted legislators just fine. So much for excellence. In the school I teach, five teachers have successfully gained National Certification. All of them teach in either our magnet program or teach AP classes. All of them are truly excellent, committed teachers; however, I doubt any of them would have gone to the huge trouble and effort of undertaking the certification process if, at the end of it, success had meant relocation. It would be interesting to know who worked this little gem into the Bill. Christopher Smith Campbell High School, Smyrna, GA.

By Ernest

February 28, 2005 01:49 PM | Link to this

Does Mary MacDonald have any updated information on the status of this legislation? I’ve spoken to a few teachers who ‘intrigued’ by this possibility. Though they were on both sides of the fence, they universally were interested in what can be done to there current compensation plans.

By Patti

February 28, 2005 04:05 PM | Link to this

Hey Ernest,

Mary says this legislation is basically a done deal. It passed in the House and the Senate and is awaiting the governor’s signature.

Teachers who already started the national certification process will be “grandfathered” into the old rules. The new restrictions kick in next year.

Patti

By JOE A. BRYANT

March 2, 2005 11:20 AM | Link to this

BEFORE WE GET TOO FAR DOWN THE LINE ON TEACHER QUALIFICATIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY JUST TO HAVE TEACHERS, ADMINISTRATORS, LEGISLATORS, GOVERNORS, SUPERINTENDENTS,ETC., TAKE THE HIGH SCHOOL GRADUATION TEST. THAT WOULD SHOW TRUE LEADERSHIP AND LET THE STUDENTS KNOW THAT WE ARE ALL IN THIS THING TOGETHER.