The teacher quality provisions of NCLB are some of the most important -- and least effectively implemented -- provisions of the law, and there’s more than enough blame to go around for all the delays, gimmicks, and obfuscation that’s taken place.
However, the Center on Education Policy has some answers, based on meetings held in the fall, about what to do the next time around. They include encouraging states to develop performance-based certification measures and more nuance in the definitions of HQT, incentives to address equity, and better data systems.
It’s core, achievable stuff -- some of it too tame, but none of it unimportant. There’s lots that can be done short of undoing collective bargaining agreements.
UPDATE: AFT Michele suggests that there’s less consensus there than meets the eye. She sees a big divide between those who want to improve working conditions
generally and those who want to focus on incentives for hard to staff schools. Working conditions? Seriously? Sometimes I think the AFTies flip a coin every day to decide whether they’re going to be progressive or reactionary. Either that, or the AFT bigwigs have no idea what Michele and John et al are up to (which would be sorta great).
UPDATE 2: Apparently it’s working conditions in hard to staff schools that Michele is talking about, not in general. OK, that helps. But I still don’t see such a big disagreement as she does.
The opinions expressed in This Week In Education are strictly those of the author(s) and do not reflect the opinions or endorsement of Editorial Projects in Education, or any of its publications.