Subscribe
Jobs
Cars
Real Estate
Apts
Classifieds
Shop
If the assertion that Indiana schools will be improved by lowering standards for teachers, principals and superintendents strikes you as odd, you aren’t the only one. Educators across the state are wondering how changes that would make it easier to teach or to supervise teachers will benefit students.
Fortunately, those concerns were shared by educators on the Indiana Professional Standards Advisory Board, who told Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Bennett they wanted more time to review the proposed extensive changes, which shift the balance of teacher education to emphasize subject content over knowing how to teach.
“The department (of education) needs to take the board seriously, giving us an opportunity to be part of a solution instead of a rubber stamp,” said advisory board member Joyce Johnstone, a faculty member at the University of Notre Dame.
The solution Bennett is seeking with the rules change is “greater flexibility and freedom to improve instruction.” The proposed changes would actually set limits on how many hours of instruction degree candidates could have in how to teach.
Officials at the state’s teacher education programs have concerns, and rightfully so.
“One of the things that concerns us is the deregulation of the certification process,” said Kathleen Murphey, associate dean for education at Indiana University-Purdue University Fort Wayne. “It seems to us a very narrow definition of learning.”
Jill Shedd, assistant dean for teacher education at Indiana University-Bloomington, said the IU School of Education is continually reviewing and revising its curriculum based on feedback from students doing field experience in schools and from teachers and administrators in the schools themselves. She also noted that much-needed changes in the teacher certification process just went into effect in 2002, so there’s been no time to assess the effectiveness of new teachers who trained under those guidelines.
She also was critical of the proposed timeline for implementing the changes, which will require teacher education programs to pare down the classes that teach prospective teachers how to teach – how to use new technology in the classroom, how to reach students with different learning styles, how to work with English-language learners or special education students.
“We would have to seriously rethink what our faculty would have to do,” Shedd said. “Where do we begin to cut our program? Maybe we would have to rethink classroom technology or how we teach students their limitations in interactions with students and parents.”
Proposed changes in the certification of principals are even more troubling. Bennett wants to allow a teacher to become a principal simply by passing a leadership exam – a throwback to the past century when cronyism ruled in Indiana school districts. Successful school districts long ago figured out that the key to a school’s success is a principal trained as an instructional leader. Even the best teachers will struggle in a building where the principal lacks the skills and knowledge to support them.
The proposal to allow districts to hire superintendents who don’t have a background in education mimics some major urban districts that have hired business professionals and retired military leaders, with mixed results. In reality, Indiana school districts are unlikely to go that route. A district that is struggling financially doesn’t need a superintendent with banking experience – it can simply hire a business manager with financial expertise.
State officials are using the threat of lost federal stimulus dollars as the hammer in forging ahead with the rules changes, but it’s more of a means to a political end. The Indiana Department of Education can point to a strong record of continuing improvement in raising achievement and seek a waiver on any teacher quality requirements.
The Obama administration is likely to be supportive if the rules are under review. Such requirements need more input from teachers, administrators, university leaders and education experts – which is why the advisory board cried foul when 70-plus pages of administrative code were put before it with no time for consideration.
The state superintendent is still new to the job. Bennett has yet to learn that the best approach to helping Indiana students is to seek the input of everyone involved in education.
With some more time focused on the content and methods of the superintendent’s job, he should be better prepared.
