In an attempt to ease Arizona’s open-position crisis, Senate Bill 1042 permits schools to hire applicants with content expertise but no coursework in education. The law applies to grades six through twelve, as do the comments below. (Part Two contains vignettes of how open positions have been filled at my school.)
Arizona’s educators generally greet SB 1042 with fear and loathing as they imagine droves of undocumented fake teachers crossing career frontiers to invade the profession. Eavesdrop on any two educators and expect to hear, “What do you think is going to happen now that anybody can be a teacher?” Cue the eye rolls and head shakes.
Opponents ask how anyone can be a teacher without studying child development, learning theory, teaching methods, and the like. What’s left out is that right now pretty much anyone can be hired to teach as long as they agree to later spend hundreds of hours and thousands of dollars completing certificate coursework.
Opponents also point out that the law doesn’t address the root causes of the open position crisis.
And they claim the law demeans the teaching profession.
Well, I don’t fear or loathe the Senate Bill 1042. Mostly, I think very few positions will be filled due to the law. Where exactly are all these tired, poor, huddled uncertified masses yearning to storm the gate and contaminate our ranks?
Regardless, the bill does offer a real time means to get content-qualified individuals into open positions, and that merits discussion. Typically, students in a teacherless class at my school face an endless stream of substitutes. Sometimes we find a decent permanent sub or an on-site teacher willing to take on an extra class (for proportional compensation). Some positions remain unfilled all year. Then, if we don’t fill the position over the summer, we start the whole mess over in the fall.
It’s easy to imagine the impact of the situation on student learning, discipline, and morale. Assuming they have the talent, whoever ends up with the class permanently will need weeks to mold the students back into a learning community. By then, the class will be so far behind that the class’s material won’t be completed – a consequence that ripples through the next year and beyond.
What’s hard to imagine is how hiring a content strong but uncertified individual could make the situation any worse. Some SB 1042 hires won’t cut the mustard and bail after several weeks. Others will stick it out, but not be very good, hate the work, and quit after a year or so. Either of these worst cases is at least a marginal improvement over watching multiple substitutes parading through an out of control teacherless class.
On the upside, some will do ok but call it quits after a year. Others will have potential, like the work, and with some decent mentoring and professional development, successfully assimilate into their new career. That’s pretty much what happens with first year certified teachers now. An added bonus is the possibility that this new blood will add some spark to schools with their outsider skill sets and histories.
Nonetheless, each argument from opponents to Senate Bill 1042 deserves a direct response.
First, do teaching classes really prepare one for teaching? Teachers don’t seem to think so. I know because some years ago, at some kind of round table, the moderator asked a group of about 20 National Board Certified Teachers if anyone’s certification programs prepared them for the job. Not a single hand went up. I sure didn’t raise mine. Since then I’ve asked the question maybe six or seven times to diverse groups of teachers. Only one teacher has ever said, “Yep, mine did!” Perhaps readers will flood the comments testifying that their programs were indispensable. We’ll see.
Second, to those who oppose of SB 1042 because it doesn’t address root causes, I have some questions: 1) How do you know that the cost and inconvenience of taking classes of at best disputable value aren’t themselves a root cause keeping accomplished professionals in other fields from considering teaching? 2) How many years are you willing to hold students hostage to the current system until any conceivable future state legislature passes your favored policies that will address root causes? 3) And what do you have to lose, anyway? If SB 1042 fails – however you define failure – you have a slam-dunk, empirical, “I told you so.” If it succeeds – however you define success – that’s a good thing – like it or not. And don’t worry – in Arizona, you will never lack issues that still need your advocacy.
Third, SB 1042 doesn’t demean the profession. Respect for any career or professional depends on how much society values the work itself and the skill it takes to create an accomplished career. Our respect for individual practitioners in any career hinges on their personal demeanor and the quality of the work they do. Diplomas and alma matters mean nothing when practitioners turn out to be incompetent or unethical.
With that in mind, teachers routinely score high on polls asking which professions people most trust and respect. (Look it up!) So consider: Which will more likely lower the public perception of teachers and education – the stories students tell their parents about what goes on in teacherless classes or learning that a new teacher didn’t take a handful of easy education classes of limited use?
All of the above is speculation. Until it’s been given a chance, we won’t really know for a while whether SB 1042 does any good or somehow manages the inconceivable and worsens the already toxic system.
But we can dig deeper into the question of the correlation between being certified and being successful as a teacher by looking at several case histories. For that, see Should Undocumented Teachers Be Allowed to Cross Professional Borders? Part Two.