SENATE BILL: The Let Us Have More Teachers Act (Law'd)

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

If more than 75% of prospective teachers demonstrate they are capable, and there is a need for them, I do not see a reason to turn them away.  Any standards should be set according to criteria that are considered necessary for effective teaching, and not relative to what other prospective teachers happen to get on a test.

While the AITA is a valuable project, this bill will also clarify that regions retain their traditional role in being able to set their own standards for licensure according to their needs. 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So if one year there are a lot of highly qualified applicants, and the next year there aren't, that could be the difference in someone getting licensure even if their performance is exactly the same?  How does that make sense?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Is there a cap on the number of teachers allowed to apply/take the exam at present (the size of the 100% pie in this case)?

I don't see how one could do that. Who decides who gets to take the test?

On the other hand there may be a spiral of fewer people going through the coursework and the test, and thus fewer people passing, as it becomes more difficult with each successive year.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Keep in mind the test does not automatically fail the bottom 25% of takers. Rather, it is designed in a way that makes it rigorous enough so that it should generally result in only 75% passing. It is not a mandate.

Thus, "increasing the rigour of the test" and "increasing the amount of people who pass it" would be contradictory barring a dramatic increase in the quality of applicants. The bill essentially calls for making the test easier, which I don't think is desirable.

As for Finland I think that's a place to look at but let's not get carried away; I remember that when Scott was governor he had a rather singular focus on "moving towards the Finnish model" that ultimately frustrated reform efforts.

Of course it is a mandate. It says "shall be designed to..."  If it is not designed in such a way so that 25% of those who take the test fail, then the law has been broken.

The point here is not to make the test easier, it is to make it suitable for the purpose.  We should be investing in ways to make those who prepare for the tests are truly capable at the things the test is supposed to be measuring, not finding clever ways to make sure a certain number of them fail.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do we even have any laws regarding teacher salary at the moment or are they covered by other public sector union laws? Do the regions?

Aside from what I assume are bonuses from the Federal Government in the GET Act, regions have set policies on this (I know the Mideast has), and the regions are still the ones, I believe, who pay a fund the majority of teacher salaries (though given the level of control the Senate has demanded over teacher policy perhaps we should be the ones paying for it). 

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

So an amendment is necessary to fix the shall/should mistake? Is there anything else at this juncture?

Does no one have any ideas on how to boost quality whilst still providing teachers in sufficient numbers?

Well we have created this test already, and that's going to make a difference in teacher education. Whether for the good or bad I'm not sure, since so much depending on a single test could leave out a lot of development of soft skills.    Maybe there are hiring practices perhaps if we really want to take that away from the regions too, but I don't see any reason why we know what we are doing in this area any more than they do.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I am ready for a final vote.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

AYE

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I thank the Senate for passing this, and the President for signing it.