The Problem With Finding Quality Teachers (And Getting Them To Go Where You Want Them To Go…)
Michael J. Petrilli asked a question over at The Education Gadfly late last month: What if “improving teacher quality” isn’t THE answer?. He talks about the problems with the goal of closing the achievement gap, and about how (and why) we’ve failed in our effort to get the best teachers to go to the neediest schools. His piece is worth reading.
I commented on Petrilli’s piece. My comment has been republished below. You can read the other 23 comments he got here.
I teach in a rural area – a county that the Appalachian Regional Commission describes as “distressed.” I think reference to “the best and the brightest” in policy is humorous because of the contrast it presents to our approach for educating the students. With the kids we want consistent, generalized proficiency. Why isn’t that the mindset with teachers?
“Highly Qualified” has been confused in the education world. People think it means “properly certified.” It’s a compliance issue, not an inspirational vision. But certification is mostly just a piece of paper that tells you little about a teacher’s ability to perform in the classroom. It tells you more about how good a STUDENT the teacher is than how good a teacher they are…
When policy makers talk about teacher shortages and attracting teachers to high need areas, it often reminds me of growing up in the military. They could move my Dad to where they needed him. Teachers are not soldiers or missionaries. I teach where I do because it’s HOME. You might convince me to work in a neighboring county. But you’re unlikely to convince me to leave Central Appalachia for Atlanta, New Orleans, or Los Angeles. The stroke of genius that might work in my view is to tie both educational and pay incentives to a history of residency in a needy target area. If you want to find teachers for Atlanta, recruit prospects from Atlanta.
Like No Child Left Behind itself, Highly Qualified Teachers is a nicely poetic concept with a good ring to it. But it’s been poorly thought out and its value is mostly in the poetry of the terminology, not in the substance it provides.
