To train, or not to train . . .

The issue is not new: Do you want a prospective math teacher, regardless of his or her education and life experience, to take the daunting battery of education courses in order to become certified to teach secondary school mathematics? New York City has finally said a resounding "no." Schools Superintendent Harold Levy has recruited 120 ex-bankers, accountants, and engineers, many of whom have not opened a high school book since the AMSCO texts were all the rage. These professionals were immersed in a two-week refresher course during the summer in preparation of getting their teaching assignments for the fall. Instructors from the City College of New York ran the two week class and gave a final test. After another five weeks of pedagogical training and student teaching, the trainees were to take a state licensing exam at the end of the summer as their final hurdle.

The State of New York will be watching the City's program closely, of course, as will the U.S. Department of Education, which has mandated through their No Child Left Behind Act that states have "highly qualified" teachers in all of their classrooms by the year 2005-06. The criteria are open for states' interpretation, but the Secretary of Education, Roderick P. Paige, has sent the strong message that teachers who know their material are much preferred over those who may not have taken all the theoretical educational courses. Sadly, there are many states, plus the District of Columbia, that have low standards for teacher employment. In the D.C. system, for example, a prospective teacher need only score at the 20%ile level on the reading section of the Praxis Pre-Professional Skills Testing Program, required for all prospective teachers.

Sources: The New York Times, The Washington Post