Changing path to teaching won’t make kids dumber
Lawmakers have relaxed the requirements to become a teacher. And opponents say this is terrible, because now any poorly educated yahoo can ruin young minds. But is it really that bad? Yes, Senate Bill 1042 is complex. Perhaps even needlessly so. There are caveats upon caveats, depending on the type of experience potential teachers bring to the table.
And a bunch of amendments were thrown in at the last minute with little discussion.
I can see why some folks — particularly Democrats — are cheesed at that.
But it’s not as if anyone with a pulse is now suddenly qualified to teach in Arizona.
The traditional path into teaching won’t change much under this bill (that is, you get a four-year degree in education, student teach, take knowledge tests and get fingerprinted to ensure you’re not a shady, terrible person).
It nixes the provisional certification, which requires teachers to apply again for a standard license after a few years in the classroom.
Standard licenses also are now good for 12 years.
Makes sense. If people can prove they’re qualified to teach, why not give them a real license from the start? And why are we forcing teachers to renew every few years? I’d much rather they spend that time focusing on their lessons, not filling out paperwork.
The bill — and additional rules the state Board of Education is required to set — makes it easier for people who are leaving another profession to teach in grades 6-12. But those folks still have to have a bachelor’s degree or higher, or at least five years work experience, in the discipline they’d be teaching.
That gets them out of having to take the content knowledge test. But they still have to pass a test on teaching fundamentals within two years. If not, their licenses get suspended — meaning they can’t teach in district schools until they pass.
It also lets teachers who have taught full time for three years in the same area without a license to get one without any additional testing.
Granted, that doesn’t make a hill of beans for those working in charter schools, because the majority of teachers there already aren’t required to have a license.
And, yes, I have an issue with that. If schools receive public funding, they should be asked to play by the same rules.
Either we require every public charter and district school to license their teachers or we don’t.
But that’s how it’s been for years. If there are unqualified teachers at charters, the problem existed long before this bill.
So, will SB 1042 fix Arizona’s horrendous teacher shortage? Eh, probably not. Aside from nixing the provisional license and creating a path for district and charter schools to train their own teachers, it doesn’t necessarily make life easier for new elementary teachers.
And, as I’ve mentioned, it’s going to require flowcharts and probably some simple hand gestures to explain how becoming a teacher just got easier. If proponents like Gov. Doug Ducey don’t aggressively share this information, few people are going to take advantage of it.
What’s more, even if the new rules were simple, they alone won’t convince people to become teachers. Vastly improved teacher pay would be a far better carrot.
But SB 1042 doesn’t let people teach without accountability, as its critics claim. It gives people credit for past experience and knowledge, and attempts to make it easier for these folks to get the classroom-management training they need to be successful.
What’s wrong with that? joanna On