A Plea for Common Sense in the Alternative Teacher Certification Wars

Vicky Schreiber Dill and Delia Stafford Johnson

The Sadism of “Sacred” Text.  The reason why there are so many different denominations, sects, and cults among almost any religion in the world which claims a sacred text is that nearly anything can be proven by using that text and by patching together sections of it as the author finds it meets his or her beliefs or needs. This tendency to pick and choose portions of the sacred script to show evidence of “research” is not unlike the “proof-texting” many seminary and graduate school scholars deride as intellectually bankrupt and self-serving.

Sadly, this patchwork technique is not the sole domain of fundament religionists.  Many dueling scholars have used the “corpus” of research in alternative teacher certification to prove with equal vehemence and “evidence” that their perspective is accurate, based on studies, and incontrovertible.  Yet “proof texting” in the alternative teacher certification wars seems to get researchers, scholars, policy-makers, and public school educators no where. Words fly fallow.  Leaving the field divided and without vision, the alternative teacher certification “research” wars proof text while children in schools nationwide still need good teachers and principals still don’t have useful information about whether or not this or that credential will increase the chances of an individual teacher succeeding and staying on the job. 

Enough Already.  Clearly, legitimate research is being done and will continue to be done by universities and school districts on their graduates and about the individuals they hire around the nation.  What makes this research so difficult to decipher and so easy to manipulate is that definitions of “alternative” and “certified” vary incredibly throughout each text.  As numerous researchers and policy makers point out, one state’s “emergency route” is another state’s “alternative” or “intern” or “certified” teacher.  So that while efforts have been made to differentiate each state’s definition and to compare “apples to apples,” the diversity of meaning is so great and the programs so agile and amorphous in many cases that incredible discretion has to be made to talk about individual programs.  Researchers should be compelled by this complexity to use extreme caution when making generalizations about states’ programs, the success of this or that route nationwide, or of a group of graduates who has achieved this rate of retention or that success due to test scores, grade point average, or content knowledge.  It would seem profoundly more useful, instead of trying to figure out who the “legitimate” teacher educators are and who the “bad guys” are and how much alternative teacher certification has succeeded or failed, to reiterate what makes sense, what we do know, and why these research wars should cease for the sake of the children whose future is imminently at hand.  It is truly amazing what we might do if we don’t care who’s right or wrong or who gets the credit.

What Makes Sense.  We know we have a challenge retaining good teachers for the students who need them the most.  In “shortage areas” such as bilingual education, special education, mathematics and science, the public schools in urban and rural areas have traditionally been challenged to retain high quality teachers.  Recruiting and retaining teachers, from whatever the source, is an art and a craft that requires a systems approach about which common sense suggests a few basic premises.

First, principals seek individuals who are “settled” in life – mature individuals, those who understand the students’ culture, idioms, backgrounds, and challenges.  Individuals in this workforce should have adequate focus on their stakeholders’ (the students) good that they are not overwhelmed by their own life issues and growth.  This maturity is not the same thing as age and is not “ageism.”  It is simply a matter of “being mature enough to be there for others.”

Second, principals should seek to identify teachers who can build relationships with students.  Teachers, however credentialed, should be able to negotiate and not have to control; they should be able to manage without humiliating; they should be willing to go the extra mile to make a difference in a student’s life without patronizing.  Clearly, a teacher cannot teach what they do not know, however, they will not succeed if their primary approach to students is control, power plays, or humiliation.

Third, principals need teachers who are themselves lifelong learners.  The college of education, the baccalaureate degree sequence, or the alternative teacher certification program are but a door into the classroom.  Teaching requires an intellectual agility and a relationship-building repertoire that cannot quit after three years in the classroom.  As students and graduate requirements change, so teachers must be rapid and inquisitive learners in order to give students effective preparation for the knowledge economy that prevails.