While they’re still in training, intern teachers are not yet highly qualified
The recent posting “Alternate Route, Same Destination” by Catherine Kearney presents one perspective on the recent congressional action to reestablish California’s teachers who are still in training through an alternative program of preparation as “highly qualified.” This distinction is not merely one of words; the congressional action allows the continuance of California’s strange definition of these teachers: They are considered to be “highly qualified” in their profession before they are actually “fully qualified” and have completed initial preparation for their profession. Although I have worked with Ms. Kearney and truly respect her dedication to her work, I would like to point out several disagreements with her perspective as well as some factual errors regarding these programs and the congressional action.
Ms. Kearney characterizes the recent action as necessary to save this “critical pathway” (alternative programs) from being cut off. I do not believe that is what this issue is about. If interns were not considered to be highly qualified, that would not mean the programs would cease to exist. As long as teacher shortages exist, internships will continue to be an important route to the teaching profession.
The article says that Public Advocates and others define “highly qualified” as including “only those who pursued their credential through traditional programs.” This is not actually true. Public Advocates and others are perfectly willing to accept graduates or those who complete alternative programs into the ranks of those considered to be highly qualified, the same as those who complete traditional programs. The difference is that candidates still in the process of completing a program, whether traditional or alternative, are not yet highly qualified. It has nothing to do with the route, but rather the completion of preparation.
The article says that traditional programs differ from alternative programs because alternative is quicker, has concurrent coursework, and includes “intensive coaching and support.” This coaching and support is most often the critical difference between program routes, but in the opposite way. In a traditional program, in addition to a “day-to-day mentor,” the teacher candidate is placed in the classroom of a fully trained and experienced teacher. These candidates experience much more and much deeper coaching and support, by watching and being watched for every teaching experience, not just having a classroom visit on occasion.
All of the qualities that are listed for teachers in alternative route programs are also true of teachers in traditional route programs, including the same requirements for demonstrating subject matter competence — not “all” by exam though, as was stated.
The article says that all alternative program candidates have 160 hours of preservice preparation. This is not quite true either. Many alternative route programs offer only 120 hours of preparation before their candidates begin teaching. The programs that offer 160 hours are usually only those which receive enhanced funding from the state.
And, by the way, 160 hours (for those who get that much) does not equal a full semester of study.
Interns misplaced in high-poverty schools
One of the most disturbing elements of the post is the statement that intern teachers are purposely placed in high-need, high-poverty schools. As we all know, these schools have the students in need of our most expert and outstanding teachers. The article defends the practice of instead sending our least trained, least experienced teachers to these schools. I would have no problem with sending the graduates of alternative programs to any school in the state; but while they are still interns — just beginning to learn their profession — they do not yet have the needed knowledge or expertise to offer these students the very best a teacher can offer. Would any of us consider a medical student to be “highly qualified” as a doctor while he/she is still in medical school? Or even while serving as a medical intern, is he/she “highly qualified”? Would we assign these students of medicine to the sickest patients, the ones in need of the most specialized treatment?
A 2009 survey is cited as evidence of employer satisfaction. While there are tens of thousands of employing principals in the state, this survey relied on just over 500 responses. And the results are misstated. Just under 90 percent thought interns were as good or better, not the “over 90%” that is cited. But that is a small difference. More significant is that actually only 62.4 percent said they would hire an intern again, not the “nearly 95%” that this posting cited — a much bigger difference. The other respondents just said “maybe.”
A more important research result comes from a study done by the California State University (CSU) system, including responses from tens of thousands of school principals. In analysis of these results, traditionally prepared teachers were judged to be significantly better prepared than their intern colleagues, even when the interns in question had completed their alternative program. And, by the way, CSU has no bias against alternative programs. CSU campuses host most of the intern programs in the state, along with the traditional route programs.
The posting mentions Colin Powell, Stephen Spielberg, and Sally Ride, and challenges the reader to assert that they are not qualified to teach because they did not complete a traditional teacher preparation program. Well, yes, I would assert that they are not qualified to teach. Just because they are masters of their own profession does not mean they automatically know mine. They probably know nothing about teaching strategies, classroom management, or how children learn. I would welcome any of these leaders into a classroom as a guest speaker, but as the day-to-day teacher of record? No, the art and science of teaching is far too important to expect non-professionals to be able to master it without full preparation.
This is not about the importance, validity, or need for alternative programs. Intern programs make an important contribution to our profession, and serve the needs of many candidates and students well. And intern teachers, once their initial preparation is complete, are just as capable of being excellent teachers as any other fully prepared novice teacher. The issue is about timing. Intern teachers are a work in progress. When they complete their training, they can be considered to be “highly qualified” and fully competent. But not during their training. Let’s save the “highly qualified” label for those true professionals who already know what their job is, not those who are still learning it.
Beverly Young is the Assistant Vice Chancellor in Academic Affairs for the California State University system. Previously she was a faculty member in teacher education at the CSU Fullerton campus, and the director of an alternative certification (intern) program. She also serves on the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing.
2 Comments
"Darn, I wish I had read that over again before I hit send.” Don’t let this be your lament. To promote a civil dialogue, please be considerate, respectful and mindful of your tone. We encourage you to use your real name, but if you must use a nom de plume, stick with it. Anonymous postings will be removed.
 |
Featured Video |
Did You Know?
Just the Facts
Other Sites to Watch
View More >>
SVEF is the education foundation advocating for the needs of school districts across Silicon Valley. SVEF seeks to improve public education through establishing partnerships with the private sector and the education community ..
As someone moving into teaching after a 25-year career in high-tech, with both an electrical engineering degree and an MBA in finance and marketing, and someone expert in my former field, I agree with Ms. Young. Intern teachers, regardless of their past work experience, academic credentials, commitment, or passion, should not be considered “highly qualified” teachers from a NCLB definitional standpoint, much less a performance standpoint. I would go so far to state that it is the rare person, indeed, who as a new teacher holding preliminary credentials, whether from a traditional or alternative path, deserves to be deemed “highly qualified” from a performance standpoint. Think about it. What profession designates its rookies and junior staff with the same descriptor as if they were on par with veterans and experts in the field?
As one can see, in many ways, this is also about semantics. ESEA / NCLB adopted a misnomer when it opted for “highly qualified” to designate a credential holder. While it is important that we delineate between non-credentialed and credentialed teachers, which serves as a minimal, directional indicator of effectiveness, the ability of new teachers holding preliminary credentials is not “highly” anything except germinating. Specifically, when interpreted to indicate “highly capable,” “highly effective,” or the like, the designator is misleading at best, and harmful at worst. Sadly, most misconstrue the NCLB usage to mean the latter.
As a student teacher in a traditional credential program, with a fair amount of time in classrooms, and a soon to be preliminary credential holder, I do not consider myself anywhere near “highly qualified” as a teacher. I am a neophyte in the world of high school today. My commitment is high, my passion intense, my background comprehensive, and deep, in many areas aligned with the subject matter I teach, yet I am no where near “highly qualified” from a performance standpoint. I hope to be in three to five years, with continued coaching in an induction program, and significant effort on my part, to hone my pedagogical practice. Given that I am fairly representative of “alternative credential candidates,” albeit one in a traditional program, I believe it is a mischaracterization of most serving as an intern, student teacher, or even a preliminary credential holder if they are deemed “highly qualified” as if they were as highly qualified as more senior, more capable, and more effective teachers.
At the same time, as My. Young mentions, this is not to deter persons like myself from changing careers into teaching. Nor is it to detract from the fine programs that bring talent into the classroom. It simply speaks to what, on its face, seems obvious. Someone new to a profession, indeed one designated an “intern” no less, cannot be designated highly qualified if that is meant to imply highly effective, which rightly or wrongly is how most interpret that phrase.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
In the event that there are veteran teachers at a school with a big population of intern teachers, those veterans often lose valuable chances for growth. Professional development is geared toward the needs of new teachers and may not offer what veterans need to enrich their practice. And veterans will spend a great deal of time assisting new colleagues. Personally, I’m happy to help but I would appreciate the opportunity to collaborate with experienced peers or seek feedback on my own classroom practice. Overwhelmed interns – many of whom have a full schedule of credentialing courses – cannot provide that support.
If we are committed to intern teachers, I think that we should place them at our least needy schools and develop incentives to bring experienced teachers to high-needs schools. Smaller class sizes, time to collaborate with peers and professional development geared toward teachers with experience would entice most of the teachers I know.
Our current system, however, depends on our neediest students receiving instruction from teachers in training. Ultimately, we are using poor children, particularly poor children of color, as testing subjects for intern teachers.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity